2016 Presidential Election: Who do you think will run?

The New York Times published the results of a poll today in which 64% of all American adults said they would like to see Hillary Clinton run for President in 2016. Among independent voters, 52% would like to see Clinton run. These percentages are nearly double those for the most-preferred Republicans; Ron Paul, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie. Clinton has yet to declare she is running, but indications are that she just might.

Do you think Clinton should run? Do you think she would she win? Why or why not?

Who do you think the Republicans will nominate? Which Republican has the best chance to win against her? Why do you think so?

For the Repubs, I see mostly a slow die-off due to the final public realization that 'Extreame positions does not make of wise decision making, if you alienate your citizens by appealing to the third standard deviation on the low end of intelligence!'

Unless some other charismatic shows up in the mean time, I'm quite sure Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Biden's too old (and gaffe prone) and Warren will guarantee a loss.

The Republicans will be a bit tougher to make a bet on, as it relies heavily on the strength of the reactionary wing/Tea Party in 2.5 years time. Christie would be a good bet a few months back, but I don't know if he can be rehabilitated in time. Jeb Bush is certainly a contender, but I'm not sure he can overcome his legacy issue. Rubio may be seen as a good contender to garner some hispanic votes, but he may not fly completely with the reactionary bunch.

In any event it will be whoever has the largest and best organized campaign staff which gets the nomination, as the nominations are now almost down to a science.

Someone will show up in the primary season and dazzle the republicans like jangling car keys in front of a baby. Remember last election cycle? Every week there was a new republican on top of the polls, and sitting in the lap of the media, they all got a nice spotlight moment then at the end of the day none of them had any momentum. The republicans have a highly fractured brand at the moment. Tea party, main stream, and libertarian conservatives are so different that they may as well be represented by different parties altogether. Clinton, despite being the most likely winner, will struggle to assuage peoples fears on the gun issue. She will struggle with issues of taxes. People in and around the democratic side of things will want her reassurances about the continued recreational legalization of weed. She will have her work cut out for her.

Why is Warren a "guaranteed loss"? She's got a couple years to get established. She is as experienced and as well-known as Obama at this stage of the cycle. There hasn't been a candidate representing the (growing) Progressive Left in FAR too long. She would certainly be my pick.

Faaaaar too left wing to be electable, and being electable is what the party machinery puts above all else. She would have to veer hard right if she is to be elected in the general election.

Remember that to be POTUS you have to be slightly to the left of Romney and McCain, but only very slightly as they both got close to 50% of the votes. Add to that the fatigue of having governed for 8 years and it's already hard for the Democrats to win even on a center platform.

Warren is the least well-known, other than O'Malley. She would have a chance to define herself or be re-defined by the GOP (for one stupid reason or another).

Faaaaar too left wing to be electable, and being electable is what the party machinery puts above all else. She would have to veer hard right if she is to be elected in the general election.

Warren's voting record and position on everything from the TARP bailouts to raising the minimum wage is more populist and centrist than leftist. Even the National Journal rated Warren as the 31st most liberal Democrat in the Senate. That's hardly "faaaaar" left-wing.

A key question to her electability is her prospective opponent. Who does the GOP have to run?

We both know that whatever she's actually done is irrelevant, it's the most left wing clips that can be dug up which ends up defining the political platform she will have to run on. Just like Romney did introduce comprehensive healthcare to MA and Obama said he would close down Gitmo. And she has made some very left wing statements (i.e. support for OWS and perceived "anti-business" stance), thus the die has been cast. Whatever she does henceforth she will be cast as being slightly to the left of Castro, and that will make here unelectable.

We both know that whatever she's actually done is irrelevant, it's the most left wing clips that can be dug up which ends up defining the political platform she will have to run on.

We don't "both know" that, except that I know it's not true and you don't.

Scott Brown spent months slinging that vicious 'fake Cherokee' crap at Warren during an extremely close Senate race in Massachusetts: an effort to define her as an 'affirmative action' fraud. It didn't work: just 31% of independent voters said it made a difference. Warren won the election.

The GOP has been slinging crap at Obama for alleged political extremism since 2008. (Remember Jeremiah Wright? The US is the number 1 killer in the world, and started the AIDS virus, and 9/11 was America's chickens home to roost and God damn America anyway.) Seven years later they're still playing the same clips and trying to pin these points of view to Obama. That all started two elections ago. Obama won them both.

The "most left wing clips that can be dug up" can damage a Democratic candidacy with some voters, but they don't necessarily define the candidate, especially when they're not true or exaggerations.

And on the subject of not true...

And [Warren] has made some very left wing statements (i.e. support for OWS and perceived "anti-business" stance), thus the die has been cast. Whatever she does henceforth she will be cast as being slightly to the left of Castro, and that will make here unelectable.

...of course that's how Warren's opponent would attempt to cast her. The credibility of such claims about Warren versus Warren's ability to respond to them credibly-- as she did during the Mass. Senate election-- is what will define her to the voters.

Mud can be slung, but it can be scraped off and (if the original slinger is not careful) slung back.

That is, unless she suddenly becomes an evangelical neo-con...

That voting block is a lost cause for Warren (along with any other Democrat or moderate Republican). But it doesn't matter.